volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
I find it kind of uncomfortable the extent to which EVERYTHING on this platform is effectively public, and how people don't really talk about it.
This is kind of a symptom of that design, and it also makes funny the fight over a #RT feature, because you're not supposed to talk about someone behind their back.
Anyway, it's a drum I beat because I don't think people really consent to the wide open nature of the platform as they use it.
Ahhh, US Press Secretary asserting that her untrue statements to journalists just goes to show how much the White House respects the independence of the Department of Justice.
I don't know what's worse, that spin, or her not seeming to know that the DoJ isn't independent but a key part of her branch of government.
All she had to say was that she was given outdated/inaccurate information to pass along. The reporters seemed to be fishing for that answer.
What times we live in...
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @flexghost
YES! The threat of default is political! That's my whole point.
The Treasury has enough to pay its debts. It cannot legally default so long as it has resources by which to pay its debts.
It is pure political posturing to talk as if default is on the table. Legally, it is not.
And if a president chooses to stop paying debts legally owed, not only would that president be choosing to blow up the economy (as they say), but I'd consider that an immediately impeachable, clearly unconstitutional decision for him to make.
But so long as the executive branch has those resources to pay the debts, which is absolutely mathematically does, it is the president's decision.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @flexghost
The Constitution assigns Congress the power "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;" to ensure that the executive branch isn't obligating the country, and future generations, to paying back creditors without the consensus of the country that it should be done.
The debt ceiling is not placing a limit on how much the Treasury may pay to service debt. Not at all.
The debt ceiling is merely the amount that Congress has authorized to be borrowed.
(And it's amazing how many people are citing Wikipedia as authoritative this time.)
Right, but it's self-inflicted as previous congresses promised spending of money that they not only didn't have but didn't even plan to finance.
We need to blame those representatives that we somehow keep reelecting for putting us in this situation.
They had every chance to authorize debt to fund their programs, and it was clear they'd need to, but they didn't.
So here we are.
Democrats had every chance to authorize the borrowing needed to fund their spending bills when they had majorities in Congress and the presidency.
That they continued to authorize spending of money everyone knew they wouldn't have even with current borrowing levels is something they shouldn't be left off the hook for.
A pox on both their houses.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @flexghost
Yes. Since the Treasury brings in enough money to pay its debts, it can pay its debts, and so legally it must.
For the Treasury to not pay debts that it has the ability to pay runs directly afoul of the 14th Amendment, and would be a really big deal.
It's the US saying that sure it COULD pay what it ows... it's just not going to.
There's a really good reason that' idea was important enough to include it in a constitutional amendment.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @flexghost
Keep in mind that any legislation, or legislative interpretation, that would prevent the US from servicing its public debt would run directly afoul of the 14th Amendment, and so would be unenforceable.
The validity of the public debt shall not be questioned, even if Congress really really doesn't want the executive branch to pay it.
If Congressional authorization of spending provides authority to borrow then we wouldn't be in this situation.
The reason the administration is going back to Congress for legislation to raise the debt ceiling is precisely because authorization to spend was not authority to borrow.
No, the debt ceiling is the limit of debt that has been authorized by law.
They issue debt securities, with permission of Congress, to obtain the money to spend.
They are two different processes that Congress by tradition treats as separate matters.
They could always authorize deficit spending and authorize new debt issuance in the same legislation, but they don't, which is how we end up in these situations.
In the clip Greenspan says there's nothing preventing the federal government from creating more money. That is of course true.
But it's not relevant here, since we're not talking about creating more money; this isn't legislation on the table "To coin Money" as Article I provides for.
Congress COULD legislate and the president execute a law to count another trillion dollars tomorrow. But that's not what the debt ceiling is, nor is it what an appropriations bill says.
Thank goodness.
An appropriations bill merely authorizes the spending of existing money. That's it.
You can see for yourself directly from the Treasury.
They publish their balance sheets transparently and continuously.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/daily-treasury-statement/operating-cash-balance
If only there was a way to see highlighted the things you're interested in; maybe an algorithm... ;)
The debt ceiling is merely the way we describe the idea that the US can't take on longterm debt without general agreement of the population.
We shouldn't be obligating future generations to paying off debts without agreement of the population in general, right? Presidents should not have unilateral authority to commit the country for decades to working to pay off a debt?
So the Constitution puts it to our elected representatives "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"
That's all the #debtceiling is, the amount of money our democratic process has agreed to borrow.
@flexghost @GhostOnTheHalfShell
You can see revenues and outlays for yourself on the Treasury's own website.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/daily-treasury-statement/operating-cash-balance
OF COURSE the federal government can run out of US dollars. The Treasury has a specific and finite balance at any one time.
Check out this website from the Treasury that specifies exactly how many dollars it has each day, the amount beyond which it would run out.
NO dollars aren't created when Congress authorizes spending. Congress is not an executive branch so it couldn't create dollars if it wanted to.
Permission to spend is not only not spending, an executive function in itself, but it has nothing to do with the creation of dollars.
You're really misunderstanding how the US government functions here, with its separation of powers.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/daily-treasury-statement/operating-cash-balance
The thing people miss is that the US has plenty of revenues to pay its debt obligations. There is NO serious legal risk of defaulting even if the debt ceiling isn't raised.
It's true that new projects won't be able to spend as much as they would like, but legally the US will prioritize its debt obligations and will not default.
We really need more civics education about how the US government functions, as this comes down to separation of branches, with the Congress only authorizing spending while the executive branch actually spends out of the Treasury.
@jchyip But the laws DON'T require more debt. And Congress was always free to authorize more borrowing to pay for the programs they were promising.
It's not the #debtceiling that's dysfunctional. It's elected officials authorizing spending that we all know can't be afforded without putting in place a way to afford it at the same time.
The debt ceiling should be shining a light on that practice. Instead we're busy fighting over the symptom instead of holding accountable the ones who promised unaffordable programs.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @flexghost
The thing people are missing is that the US has plenty of revenues to pay its debts. There is no serious legal risk of defaulting regardless of the debt ceiling.
That's just a talkingpoint politicians are using to get their followers upset, fearmongering they're using to spin the narrative.
Yes, the US might run short of funds to pay for new promised programs, but the US absolutely has enough to cover its debt obligations.
It's not right because it overlooks an important part of how the US government operates: the Treasury takes in enough money to pay its bills, so there is no legal risk of default.
The bills will be paid.
That's just math, as the income is higher than the amount required to pay the bills.
It's NEW spending that might have to be pulled back on.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
